StarCraft Wiki talk:Notability policy
Things to take into account: Wikipedia has a policy against trivia sections. We should only include information that is somehow relevant in such sections (and even then, keep them short). Kimera 757 (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC) An example might be StarCraft: Ghost: Nova, whose trivia section used to say: "* The "22nd Infantry Division" is also the name of a top military unit in Command & Conquer: Tiberium Wars, a novel by Keith R. A. DeCandido. Several characters in the novel are named after characters in StarCraft: Ghost: Nova, such as Kelerchian, Ndoci, Johanssen, Eamonn and the medic Scheeler. * A reporter, Annabella Wu, a main character of Tiberium Wars, bears the first name of Nova's mother as well. * Detective Jack Pembleton shares the surname of a detective character from the TV series Homicide, Life on the Street. Frank Pembleton is far more cerebral than his StarCraft universe counterpart. * In the Firefly episode, Safe, Simon reads a letter from River, in which she mentions the d'Arbanvilles' ball, which was "duller than last year". The ball causes social discomfort for both Nova and her brother, as neither of them had dates. DeCandido wrote the novelization of the film Serenity, which included a novelizing and expansion of this flashback scene as part of the novel's background. " But was changed to: "The "22nd Infantry Division" is also the name of a top military unit in Command & Conquer: Tiberium Wars, a novel by Keith R. A. DeCandido. Several characters in the novel are named after characters in StarCraft: Ghost: Nova, such as Kelerchian." Notes based on interpretation (eg Jim Raynor looks a lot like Sawyer from Lost) should be discouraged. (This goes doubly because Lost is newer than StarCraft.) Saying Jim Raynor is based on a character from the same name as Rush is relevant, however. Kimera 757 (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Most of the miscellaneous information that find its way in is because there's a degree of 'resemblance' between on thing or another. If we can it would be helpful to have some guidelines on what constitutes 'sufficient resemblance' and what may be compared. For example, we don't seem to have problems with pointing out that some things are named after mythological entities, but it gets rather nebulous when it comes to comparing entities between StarCraft and other non-StarCraft games. Meco 22:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Specificity should play a role in this as well. "AI Rampancy", for instance, is a specific concept from a video game (as far as I can tell), but "space marines" probably are not. (There's little point of saying StarCraft Marines resemble powered armor Marines from the new Warhammer 40K game.) Marines resemble the powered infantry from the novel Starship Troopers (the first use of powered armor in fiction and a bug war) and they're also similar to the space marines from Aliens (similar lines and a bug war). The Dropship from Aliens doesn't just look like the Dropship in StarCraft, but there are shared lines (and in a bug war, natch). In addition to specificity, there's also the number of points of reference to take into account. Kimera 757 (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC) A bit of synthesis then: *Uniqueness **Compared entity may have a alient place in popular culture. *Resemblance **Given Uniqueness, compared entity should have clear resemblance to the StarCraft entity. *Inspiration **Compared entity must clearly have been the salient inspiration for the StarCraft entity, or vice versa. With a bit of expansion and examples, that might serve as a basis for the policy. Meco 23:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Looks good. I think any entry should match at least two of the guidelines then (to keep the number of entries relatively small). Kimera 757 (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC) Images Seeing the newest edits to Mar Sara, we need an extra bit of policy for "image notability" too. Kimera 757 (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC) Do you want something like the stuff in moved into the notability policy? Meco 20:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC) You mean the image must come from Blizzard? That might be too restrictive. Kimera 757 (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Ouch. That's a particularly archaic part of the policy now that our understanding of the copyright issue is better. Definitely something I'll need to look at when I get the chance. Meco 04:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)